Vol. 96 No. 1
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 4, at the end of Section 4 (2) to add the words:—"Provided that, at least one calendar month before making any Order approving of such scheme, the Minister shall cause to be published for sale to the public the details of such scheme."
I think this amendment explains itself.
Though in a different context, there are two other amendments which also deal with publicity and the principle is the same. Perhaps Deputy Dockrell will discuss the principle of the three together— that is, of amendments Nos. 1, 5 and 6. A decision on No. 1 need not govern the other two. There is a question relating to publicity in all three.
In matters like this, which do affect the public widely and particular people very much, it is of great advantage if the interested parties can be placed in a position to read the details of such schemes as early as possible, and it is along those lines that this amendment is being moved.
I am not prepared to accept this amendment. The publication of the schemes at the stage contemplated in the amendment could not be agreed to at all. I do not think the Deputy appreciates that publication in the detail which would be required when the schemes were being submitted for approval would be undesirable, having regard to the fact that tenders for the completion of the works, or portion of the works, would subsequently be invited by the board. Furthermore, the schemes might have to be altered as the work proceeds and might even have to be altered following re-examination before the work commenced, so that publication at the stage contemplated in the amendment might, in some circumstances, be misleading.
I do not understand the Minister's attitude. He said that, at the stage contemplated, publication might be misleading. How could it? It is a scheme which is published with the knowledge that it may be amended —that it may be sent back or approved, that it may be refused or approved. People will know that. There is no prejudice affected. Nobody will be misled by a feeling of sympathy because the details of the scheme will be published. Even if it were published after the approval Order had been made there is still room for amendment in the working out of the machinery. I do not see how the prejudicial argument has any value whatever.
That is not the amendment before the House.
What is not the amendment?
After the approval Order has been made.
I am saying that even if it were, that particular argument might be used and, I suggest, might be used with more force because it could then be said: "We have now approved of such a thing". Although it is subject to amendment, the public might get the idea that it was in its final form and there might be a certain amount of delusion. Neither do I understand the argument based on the fact that tenders have to be got. How will anybody be prejudiced, or how will anybody get any more information than people will eventually get on the publication of such a scheme as the board sends up for approval? I do not see how that is to happen at all. The full details of much bigger schemes have been published and there has been no prejudice whatever.
So far as the point of time is concerned, there has been no argument by the Minister. In case there be, I meet it, in anticipation. Experience, I think, will show that, as between the date when a scheme is first thought of and the first movement towards carrying it out takes place, a very big space of time will elapse. Even from the time a scheme gets to the stage of final formulation, after it has been back once or twice and then comes up more or less ready for final approval—even from the date upon which a scheme is approved to the date on which the first penny piece is spent there will certainly be plenty of time for further consideration, or at least for notification of the public.
The Minister on an amendment of mine similar to this last week suggested that this was no matter to bring before the Dáil, that the Dáil was not able to judge schemes of this sort. That, of course, if really believed in by the Minister, is a complete handing over of all we pretend to believe in with regard to a Parliament like this discussing matters, even though technical matters, with the help of technical information from those specially interested. There are big details which can always be discussed, even on the most technical scheme. The public surely would be entitled to know whether it is proposed to have a hydro scheme or a fuel scheme—and, in that case, whether on coal imported or coal native—or a scheme based on native fuel of some other type and when a scheme of costs appropriate to the three or four types of development will be put before them. The general body of the people, not to speak of their representatives here, ought to be, and, I suggest, would be, in a position to discuss effectively any such scheme and to lend some assistance to the Minister with regard to it.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
If the Minister will not accept it, there is not much point in pressing it.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 6, Section 8 (2) line 45, to delete the word "three" and substitute the word "five".
This amendment deals with the compensation payable to people whose lands or fishery rights are interfered with. It is the intention to pay the owners for loss of income arising out of any schemes which may be undertaken, and I presume the basis of the eventual compensation they will get will be the average of the income of past years. Surely the fairest thing would be to pay that average income to the owners until the whole matter of compensation had been settled and the owners got a lump sum. That would be the fairest method, but my amendment does not ask that that should be done. The Minister proposes to pay interest at 3 per cent. on the capital sum eventually agreed upon, and my amendment asks that the rate be 5 per cent. At present interest rates are low, but this Bill does not deal with the present moment, and, in these circumstances, 5 per cent. would be a fairer figure. Again, nobody could bororw money at the moment at 3 per cent. If money has to be borrowed, it has to be paid for at the rate of 5 per cent., and I suggest that these people should be paid at the higher rate. I trust the Minister will agree.
The principle of this amendment was fully discussed in Committee, and I have nothing to add to what I said then. I pointed out on that occasion that delay in reaching agreement, or in bringing the issue to arbitration, can be due as much to the action of the person whose property is acquired as to that of the board.
Is there any way in which a person whose property is affected can make the board come to a speedy decision?
He can have the matter brought to arbitration on his own initiative. There is, therefore, no reason why we should give him an inducement to delay matters further by paying interest upon the amount due to him at a rate higher than the prevailing rate.
Will the Minister add a statistical figure: What was the average period of delay, say, in connection with the Liffey matter, as between acquisition or destruction of an easement and the coming to arbitration?
In the great majority of cases there was no arbitration— there was agreement.
But in cases in which there was arbitration there was very long delay, caused, I suggest, mainly by the board, and people who wanted to get to arbitration could not get to it speedily. Apart from all that, this is apparently by way of a screw. We are going to offer 3 per cent. only, with a view to making people whose property has been affected jump speedily before an arbitrator in order to get their cases heard and compensation assessed. The whole thing is very difficult to discuss on the basis laid down. The Minister has not been able to tell us, or even to give us a hint of, the rate at which he expects to be able to borrow money for this purpose. He does not even tell us how far he proposes to allow the financiers of the State, the State Exchequer, to do a little moneylending with regard to it. He does not tell us at what percentage over the rate at which money can be borrowed money will be lent to the Electricity Supply Board.
That scarcely arises on this amendment.
Surely it does not arise on this.
I say that we have not any information on these points, and that, in the absence of that information, we are asked to take a definite step and to say that, no matter what earning a person may be getting out of a piece of property which is confiscated, we will not give him more than 3 per cent. I do not like Deputy Dockrell's amendment in the sense that it stabilises 5 per cent. The figure of 5 per cent. may be outrageously high in certain cases and scandalously low in respect of other property which may be taken over. I think that to fix a price is wrong. It is certainly wrong to fix it at 3 per cent. in the absence of the other matters that I have referred to. There is no justification for it. The Minister will find that in all matters relating to the acquisition of property the delaying capacity rests almost entirely in the hands of those operating on behalf of the State. No case has been made for stereotyping the figure of 3 per cent. when we do not know what the other financial rates are in connection with the whole matter.
I think the Minister's excuse for not accepting the amendment is a very poor one. As between the 3 per cent. in the Bill and the 5 per cent. which Deputy McGilligan thinks is perhaps too high, I do not think that any owner of land, even for the 2 per cent.—the difference between the two rates quoted—is going to take a case wantonly to court. I think that what I have asked is fair, and that the Government could have been more generous in fixing a fair rate of interest. I am sorry that the Minister cannot see his way to accept the amendment.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 6, Section 8, (3) (b), line 57, to delete the words "one month's" and substitute the words "three months".
This amendment is somewhat similar to amendment No. 1. The object is to secure that longer notice will be given, and that more time will be allowed. One month is really too short a period to prescribe in a measure of this kind. After all, a fishery owner may find himself unable to let the angling within that period. The principle that I am arguing for in this amendment is conceded in an earlier part of the section in the case of a dwellinghouse. I think the Minister should also concede it in regard to land and fisheries.
This amendment was also discussed in Committee—at least a similar amendment raising the same principle.
And withdrawn in Committee.
I have really nothing to add to what I said in Committee. The Bill stipulates minimum periods. Ordinarily, the board would give the longest possible notice. In all circumstances, except the most unusual, the notice given would be longer than the minimum period specified in the section. The question of the acquisition of fisheries does not arise in connection with this section at all.
Why put in a most unreasonable minimum period? The Minister says that probably a longer notice would be given. If it so happened that there was an oversight about the notice, an individual might only get a month's notice. That would be very unfair to a man who had his plans made for seasonal work. I think this is a most reasonable amendment.
I do not think so. I may say that the provisions here are similar to those that appear in all other enactments of the same kind.
That is no proof that they were just.
It is a reasonable presumption.
Why is it that fisheries do not come under this?
The question of the acquisition of fisheries only arises where a claim for compensation is made.
Does not interference with fisheries arise?
Not here.
Surely the board is entitled to interfere with the fisheries under (a) and (b).
The board has no power to acquire a fishery right unless there is a claim for compensation.
Under the section, is it not possible to achieve interference with a fishery right? Surely it is, and therefore the matter does arise here.
It is not a question of acquisition.
Interference with water rights may cause interference with fishery rights. Sub-section (3) refers to anything done in the way of such interference or acquisition under the section, and, surely, that takes in all other matters.
The section puts on the board the obligation to give at least a month's notice if the board enters on or takes possession of any land, etc.
The Minister said it had nothing to do with fisheries.
With the acquisition of fisheries.
I am not sure whether earlier legislation prescribed this matter of notice as it is now. There is to be a month's notice and three months' notice in the case of a dwellinghouse. The notice is to be sent to the person's last known place of address, and in case that is not known, then it is to be addressed to the occupier. In these circumstances, a man who had got no notice whatever may be summoned.
The board would ordinarily adopt every practicable means of communicating with the owner.
This old-time legislation of one month's notice, extended to three month's notice in the case of a dwellinghouse, which appears in the Shannon Electricity Act of 1925, was inserted for the reason that time was the very essence of the matter. If the scheme was not got going by a certain date then prices were going to move up. Secondly, the scheme, once started, had to be commercially developed by a certain date. There was that desire that there should be nothing to impede the carrying through of the scheme. Is it likely that the same necessity for speed will arise in the case of this Bill? If not, what is the objection to the small enlargement which Deputy Dockrell is seeking? or even making some multiplication of it —three months in the case of a fishery and six months in the case of a dwellinghouse? Nothing like this ever arose where there was the same fish or urgency.
There is this element of urgency, that we want electricity as early as we can get it.
That is a hollow argument—after waiting 20 years to jump up now and say you must get it. No argument can be made, with any appearance of reason, for a terrific rush of speed now, in the year 1945. This scheme has been lying very long without any movement on it. Again, I say there is no scheme prepared that we know of: we have not approached approval Orders or anything like that.
We will start work on the scheme in April, I hope.
That may be so, but by putting on the spurs and getting going, giving the three months or even later, you could cut out the extra time which Deputy Dockrell requires. If the Minister is making a scheme will he tell us how many dwellinghouses, how many fisheries, even on the first preliminary look at it, are involved and where is there any necessity for urgency with regard to them?
I am afraid the Minister cannot appreciate the hardships involved. Take an efficient farmer running his business in an efficient way. He has got notice to quit. His land is involved and even his dwellinghouse within three months. There is nothing unreasonable in asking to give him time to look round for a new home and a new farm which will suit his ideas. That may require a rather long time and he should be given reasonable notice to enable him to get an alternative means of livelihood. He could scarcely hope to get what might suit him within three months of the time he was given notice. I had two amendments down to this on the Committee Stage, but I was not present and they were withdrawn. I think it is most unreasonable to put down such a short period. The Minister suggests that the board will not exercise its power or that it is unlikely they will do so. Why should we put in such a provision to allow them to do so if it so happens that they would not operate it?
The Deputy must have regard to the realities of the matter. At the moment, so far as the Erne is concerned, everybody in the locality knows what lands are involved.
If the Minister believes that people are going to take action to get other places, before the blow actually falls, he is not a good judge of human nature. Even if a person does believe that his own land will be involved, he will not take any action until he is really encompassed in the matter, and the Minister knows that.
The Minister knows a man cannot take action, as he cannot be in two places at once. He cannot be occupying his farm, which he has in this area, and another farm elsewhere, as he cannot go until he gets notice.
And knows the compensation that will be paid. That is true. In exercising all these powers, the board has always shown full consideration for the difficulties of individuals.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 7, Section 9 (5), line 58, to insert after the words "City of Dublin" the words "and in one provincial newspaper circulating in the district to which the scheme applies".
I hope the Minister will accept this amendment, which would not cost the Department very much. It seems a fair thing to do. The people of the district should have as early notice and information on the subject as anybody else and their local newspapers should be the ones concerned.
I have no objection to the amendment, but I think the provisions of the Bill are better. The Bill gives the Minister power to prescribe other newspapers besides Dublin papers, in which the publicity must take place. In so far as there may be difficulty in determining the district to which the scheme applies or the area which may be affected in some form or other by the adoption of the scheme, I think it wiser to have the matter brought up for consideration as a special item when approval is given and an Order made prescribing the newspaper or newspapers in all the areas affected by the scheme, rather than that we should put in the Bill some such words as the Deputy suggests. I would strongly contend that the provision in the Bill is preferable to the amendment. In any event, I would stress that the intention is to ensure the maximum publicity for the public notice referred to in this sec-tion—publicity, I should say, which will extend to every local newspaper circulating in any district where interests may be affected by the scheme.
Of course, this amendment is not going to hinder anything that the Minister has in the section. It is going to make sure that the people of the district, the people who are most concerned, will see it in their local newspaper.
If these words were adopted, you may have disputes as to what newspaper is a newspaper circulating in the district to which the scheme applies.
But then the Minister is covered in the earlier part, which says: "and in such (if any) other newspapers as shall be prescribed by the Minister". Presumably the Minister can put it in all the newspapers in Ireland, if he likes, and that may be reasonable.
Not in all the newspapers in the country, but in all the newspapers in any area that may be affected directly or indirectly. That will be the practice, I can assure the Deputy.
But the section as it stands does not say that it should be given publicity in the area.
It does say that it shall be published in two Dublin newspapers and in certain others.
No, no, it says: "and such others (if any)".
The Dublin newspapers may be sufficient.
If the Minister cut out "if any", it would meet Deputy Dockrell's point, as it would mean at least one other.
Then there must be at least a newspaper circulating in the area.
Yes.
The words "if any" may apply to that.
Will the Minister tell us an area in which there is no newspaper in circulation?
Further development of the Liffey is contemplated quite near the city.
Is there no other newspaper in the neighbourhood?
I would not like to answer that question without notice, but I do not think so.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, after Section 9 (6) to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(7) The Minister shall cause to be published a report containing general information as to the contents of such maps, plans and books of reference, and such report shall be available for sale to the public.
This is somewhat similar in form to other amendments. Under the Bill at present, interested parties have to come up to Dublin to see the plans. So far, so good, but surely some sort of report and explanatory memorandum on the subject could quite easily be published and would be of the very greatest help to interested parties. Public companies quite often issue explanatory memoranda along with complicated schemes of arrangement and I do not think there would be any great difficulty in the board doing that. It would certainly be of very great assistance to anybody interested. It would give people who had a great financial interest or any other sort of interest in the scheme and who were not themselves technical experts a chance of getting these copies and going into them with technical experts, an opportunity which would be denied to them if it were a case of going to the offices of the board and consulting them there.
I must confess I do not see the point here. The maps, plans, and books of reference which the board, by Section 1, is required to have prepared will be available for inspection at such places as may be prescribed. I informed the Dáil that they would be available for inspection in the area affected in public buildings and Gárda stations. I cannot see any additional advantage in having a report published as to the contents of the maps, plans and books of reference available for inspection. If anybody wants to know what is in the maps, plans and books of reference, they can go and look at them.
That sounds very well, but even here in the Dáil it has been necessary to publish explanatory memoranda with Bills, although Deputies may find it easier to understand a Bill than the general public to understand blue prints.
These are maps, plans, and books of reference relating to particular parts of works or particular things such as lands, premises, rights, or property which might be affected by the works. These are not plans for the generating station or for the distribution of electricity. These are maps and plans which will indicate to property owners whether or not their rights are affected.
What we want is that they should be got out in some more readily acceptable form.
I might remind Deputies, of course, that we are not in Committee and that a Deputy can speak only once on each amendment. I have not, however, been very strict, as Deputies will have noticed.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 9, Section 11, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) The Minister for Agriculture shall cause to be published for sale to the public all such precautions and provisions as he may at any time prescribe under this section.
This is an amendment asking the Minister to publish for sale all such precautions and provisions as may at any time be prescribed under this section. If there is not some notice given of these precautions and provisions, it will be very difficult for the general public and for interested parties to know about them.
This amendment is hardly practicable. I think the Deputy misunderstands what is contemplated. It is not proposed that a plan for the works will be drawn up and submitted to the Minister for Agriculture, who will then indicate the changes in the plan which he desires and, by doing so, exhaust his rights under the Bill. It is contemplated that there will be continuous consultation between the Electricity Supply Board and its contractors and the Minister for Agriculture or his fishery experts, and that the Minister for Agriculture will have the right at any time to require that certain precautions will be taken or that certain provisions will be adopted in the execution of the works to avoid injury to fisheries. It would not, therefore, be practicable to have published, as is suggested by the Deputy, a notice of the precautions which the Minister is requiring the board to take. The Minister's obligation will be a continuing one until the works are completed. At all times, officials of the board and of the Fishery Branch of the Department of Agriculture will be in consultation, and the Minister for Agriculture, if he thinks necessary, may exercise his right under the section to require the board or its contractors to take specified precautions or adopt particular provisions to avoid injury to fisheries.
The final word in this is surely with the project that the board has advanced. Is not this to be the standard for the provisions and precautions to be taken?
We are putting on the Minister for Agriculture the obligation of satisfying himself.
The terms of reference to him and along which he has to work mean that these provisions should not cause substantial detriment to the works. In other words, it is electricity first and fisheries a long way second. That is the old plan. I suggest that it is about time that this whole matter of fisheries was taken into consideration. It was a sheer accident that fisheries came under the control of the board at all. The fishery side, if it is not out of order, has grown to very substantial proportions and nobody can say that it has been attended to by the board.
The suggestion is not out of order provided the remedy is not developed now.
I do not like speaking about suggested remedies. Nobody can say that the board's activities with regard to fisheries have been anything like as efficient as their activities with regard to the development of electricity. I should say that the reason is that it is a matter altogether extraneous to the work the board were selected to do. I suggest to the Minister, although there is nothing provided for here, that some time or another it will have to be done; that the fishery side will have to be separated from the board, allowing for collaboration between the board and the Minister who is really in charge of fisheries—the Minister for Agriculture at present. It is important that it should be put on a proper basis and the only way is to let the Minister for Agriculture have——
There is a practical arrangement which secures the same result.
You can always get a person with the interests of fisheries at heart.
A member of the board is appointed for that specific purpose.
I suggest that nobody can say that that particular side of the board's work has been efficiently done, certainly not as efficiently done——
I never heard any suggestion to the contrary.
Would the Minister like to tell the House what has been done for the betterment of fisheries? I suggest that he would speak very briefly indeed on it.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 9, Section 14 (3), line 59, to insert the word "lands" before the word "fisheries".
I return to this vexed question. I discussed it on the Committee Stage, but I had put no amendment down. In spite of the Minister's explanation, I still feel that something further than the explanation that he had come into line with Deputy McGilligan's views on the matter is required.
You should read what the Minister said about that.
When I pressed the Minister for a reason for his change of attitude, I am afraid the only reason he could give us was a very weak one—that he was presented with a fait accompli. It would be worth having the matter discussed again to see if we could not bring him back to his previous attitude. I was fortified in this resolution after reference to the previous debate on this subject, particularly to the very moving terms in which Deputy de Valera, as he then was, spoke on the matter. He referred to it as a hidden subsidy. I do not propose to go into the words he used. But there was deep feeling on the matter and for the Minister to say that the whole position was changed from the Government's point of view just because they were presented with a fait accompli, is hardly satisfactory.
So far as the board is concerned, the sum of money involved is relatively small but, so far as the local authority is concerned, it is a considerable sum of money. So far as County Donegal is concerned, it may approximate to one penny in the pound per annum, which does not look very much, but which represents a considerable amount to a ratepayer, especially as there seems to be a continual tendency on the part of the Government to put a proportion of taxation on to the local authorities. It has happened in connection with various matters. There is that tendency and the Minister for Local Government has indicated that the property owner has very broad shoulders. I feel strongly on the matter, because the amount involved would be a small matter for the board, but it is a very big matter for the local authority. I do not want to go into the arguments used in past debates. There is also the question, which is a small one but still an injustice, as to how it affects the local rate collector. A very considerable amount is struck off. I would like the Minister to consider it. The Minister's case apparently rests on a definition of the word "works", which does not occur in this Act. Neither does it occur in the 1927 Act. I could not make a great deal of the 1930 Amending Act, the language in it is so complicated. The words defined in the 1927 Act are "Shannon works". Is the Minister satisfied that that covers "works" here?
No. The works here are all works executed by the board in carrying out an approved scheme.
Yes, but the Minister indicated that that covered land because "works" was previously defined. "Works" was not previously defined in any of the Electricity Supply Acts. As far as I can find, the only definition is a definition of "Shannon works".
Land which does not form part of the works is not exempted from rates.
I appreciate that, but is the Minister quite satisfied that his definition is contained somewhere, because it is not in the 1927 Act and I do not think it is in the 1930 Act, but I admit that the language of the 1930 Act is extremely difficult to follow. There are three sections dealing with this question of rates and I must confess I did not follow it. Of course, it is in the Minister's interests—it has nothing to do with my interest in the amendment as to whether "works" has been properly defined, or not.
I do not think there has been any difficulty in that respect. I would not agree with the Deputy either that the amount of money involved is small from the point of view of the board. I take it that he will agree that we could not reverse the established principle in the case of new works without reversing it also in the case of old works, in which case the additional charge upon the board would be quite substantial. It would be substantial enough in ordinary times to affect the price of current. At the present time, when the board is losing a substantial amount of money every year, I suppose different considerations apply, but in normal circumstances, when the board's charges for current are fixed to cover all its outgoings, the imposition of a new charge in respect of rates for all the existing generating works would very definitely involve an increase in the price of current. May I say that was the situation which I found and which, apart from the merits of the arguments that were used previously, induced me to leave the existing position unchanged?
I should like strongly to support this amendment. I think on the Committee Stage the Minister argued that the local authorities might be recouped to some extent for the loss incurred in the derating of agricultural property which might be submerged by the fact that new rateable property would spring up in the immediate vicinity of the works. I do not think that has been the case in Wicklow, where, as far as my memory serves me, about £5,000 worth of agricultural valuation was derated.
I will be very much surprised if it does not prove to be the case when normal conditions return, in Wicklow.
That may be, but at the moment there is a very extensive reduction in the rateable valuation of the county, which has resulted in an increase in the rates on the remaining rateable property. The result is that people who derive no benefit at present from electrification have to subsidise the Electricity Supply Board. I do not think that was ever intended. The Taoiseach referred to this as an invisible subsidy. The Minister, of course, in some of his statements said that he is against subsidies. If the Minister is against subsidies on general principles—although it is a new principle for him—he must certainly be against an invisible subsidy, particularly when the people who are paying the subsidy—the rural ratepayers in the case of County Wicklow— derive no benefit whatever from the electrification. If rural electrification were universal, there might be a case for exempting the submerged lands from rates, but it seems wrong that the rural ratepayer, in any county where land is extensively submerged, should be made to pay an invisible subsidy—as the Taoiseach described it —towards electricity consumers. It does not seem just. Therefore, I think the Minister should accept the amendment.
The full amount of the rate that would be derived from, say, submerged property is not lost to the county. There is a system whereby there is an exemption from rates, but on all property so exempt from rates in a particular area, I understand, an amount equal to 50 per cent. of the rate that would have been payable is, in fact, paid by way of gratuity. I think the local authority is not deprived of the full amount. They are deprived, at the most, of about half. I think that is the situation. But let nobody be deceived, looking back on the debates, or reading cold debates nowadays, by any talk of the present. Taoiseach with regard to a hidden subsidy. That is not what was in his mind. What he wanted was, if he could get the Shannon property derated, the whole of Clare would be derated and all the Dalcassians in the Dáil were called to the sound of the bugle to march to that tune. There were only three in the House and there were two more in the Seanad. The whole argument was put on a most selfish basis—if we can only get this property derated, Clare will be derated. That was the beginning and end of it. The question of a hidden subsidy was the old art of putting up a false argument in order to cover the real one. In so far as this may be a subsidy, the argument was thrashed out long ago and I think it was a sound one. The situation has somewhat changed since then. It might have been then asserted, in anticipation of realities, that putting the board in that particular position was giving them an advantage over, say, a commercial group who began to institute a scheme of the type. Then, of course, no mind could have forecast particular things that would be put upon the board in between. The Minister said, for instance, that the board in the last couple of years have been losing money. If they are, the Minister might tell us at what price was he selling them coal, and at what price did he get the coal. We will see how far the State was making a bit off the board if the Minister would also let us know the rate at which money was found and the rate at which it was lent to the board. For instance, if saving certificates were ploughed into the Shannon business, the effective rate of interest on those was certainly not beyond 2½ per cent. If that has been lent at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4½ to 5 per cent., the State is making a pretty penny. If the board were let free of all those money-lending tactics, they could possibly afford to pay this and the local authority would be satisfied.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 11, Section 18 (2), to insert after the word "shall" in line 42, the words "provided that the number of such complete open fishing seasons does not exceed five", and to delete all words from the word "but", line 47, to the end of the sub-section and substitute the following words: "Where the number of such complete open fishing seasons does exceed five the compensation payable shall be fifty-two times the said average weekly earnings or wage or earnings and wage, as the case may be".
This is an effort to get a little more justice for the employees in the fishery industry. The maximum compensation which any employee can possibly get is a sum equivalent to 52 times his average weekly earnings in the season before the board takes possession. This amendment asks that that compensation should be paid to all employees who have a service of not less than five years. The maximum compensation is 52 times the average weekly earnings during a full fishing season, but in practice it does not work out like that. Fisheries have been closed down long before the end of the open season if the fish are no longer running. For that reason the maximum compensation to any one man is not as much as might be supposed. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
This amendment proposes to alter the basis of compensation and I think it is an alteration for the worse. It may mean that certain people would get more, but the abrupt jump in the amount of compensation which the Deputy proposes, after the people who had been employed for five seasons have been accounted for, would arouse a great deal of discontent. I think the proposal to relate the compensation to the number of years in which a person has been employed in the industry is perfectly justifiable and provides for uniform treatment for all employees. The suggestion to pay on that basis to those only five years employed, and on a more elaborate basis to those six years employed, would cause a great deal of discontent.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 15, Section 26 (1), to add at the end of the sub-section the following words:—
"save that the assessment of compensation shall be made by a judge of the High Court in lieu of an official arbitrator and in the application of the said Act all references to an official arbitrator shall be construed accordingly".
This is an amendment following on what has been done in certain other Bills lately and it suggests that a judge of the High Court should act in lieu of an official arbitrator. I understand the official arbitrator has carried out his duties efficiently, but a judge of the High Court is a person who, perhaps, looking long ahead, is more likely to give general satisfaction.
I do not know why we should substitute a judge of the High Court for an official arbitrator. I think the official arbitrator is a much more suitable person to discharge this duty.
I understand he has been quite suitable.
How is he appointed?
By the reference committee.
That consists of the Chief Justice, with others? Is it the reference committee connected with the acquisition of land?
Yes.
I understand he is not permanent. The position is that you ask the reference committee when you want an official arbitrator?
Yes.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 16, Section 28, to delete lines 7 to 10, and substitute therefore the words "arises out of anything done or omitted to be done in pursuance or purported pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act".
This section is, perhaps, a bit narrow and it might lead to quite unintentional injustice being done to people in the future. The amendment is moved just to leave no doubt whatever that the intention is to compensate persons whose rights and properties are interfered with by anything done under the powers given to the board. It seems that under the section as it stands the board might be compelled against its own will not to treat persons as justly as it would like to because of the somewhat narrow wording of the section.
This is only a drafting change that the Deputy is suggesting, and I do not think it is an improvement. I do not believe it is necessary to insert these words. I think the existing wording is quite clear: "Where such injury is caused during the construction or by the operation generally of hydro-electric works constructed by the board in pursuance of an approved scheme"—compensation should be paid. I think these words are ample and they are more all-embracing than those suggested by the Deputy.
Can a thing be more all-embracing?
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 16, to delete Section 30 (1), lines 46 to 49, and substitute the following sub-section:—
(1) (a) The Minister may, on the application of the board, make an Order (in this section referred to as a transport works Order) under this sub-section authorising the board to construct, maintain and operate, for the purposes of the performance by the board of any of its functions under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1927 to 1942, or this Act, the transport works specified therein in such manner, subject to such restrictions and provisions, and on such terms as the Minister thinks proper and specifies in the order;
(b) every application for a transport works Order shall be accompanied by a draft of the proposed Order, a plan of the proposed transport works and a book of reference to such plan, and such draft, plan and book of reference shall be in such form as the Minister may direct;
(c) where an application is made for a transport works Order the board, if so required by the Minister, shall—
(i) deposit, and make available for inspection, in accordance with the directions of the Minister, a copy of the plan and the book of reference which accompanied the application,
(ii) publish, in accordance with the directions of the Minister, such notices as the Minister shall specify in that behalf.
When the Bill was being prepared I think there was insufficient attention given to the precise position in respect of transport works. In the past the operation of transport works was authorised by special Acts which provided for the adaptation to the extent necessary of the General Clauses Acts relating to transport operation. The provisions which were originally inserted would hardly be adequate. I think that the inadequacy of the provisions arose out of the fact that during the emergency the powers previously conferred by special Acts have been conferred under Emergency Powers Orders. As the Emergency Powers Act presumably will have ceased to operate at some stage when the provisions of this Bill will still be operative, it is necessary to substitute for the original provision the amendment which I propose, and which provides for the making of a Ministerial Order in lieu of the special Acts previously resorted to, to authorise the carrying on of transport works by the board where such works are necessary for the discharge of its functions by the board.
That is the purpose of all the amendments in my name, merely to make more ample the provisions of Section 30 with regard to the construction of railways and avoid the necessity which would otherwise arise of proceeding by way of the exercise of powers secured under the Emergency Powers Act. The board has constructed a railway at Portarlington in connection with the construction of the Clonsast Station, and the Turf Board has also constructed, and is operating, transport undertakings under the authority of Emergency Powers Orders. In order to get away from that temporary legislation, it is necessary to have some such provision as this, which enables the Minister to do by Order what, in the past, would have been done by a special Act.
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 20, Section 33 (1) (c), lines 14 and 15, to delete the words "a reconstruction" and substitute therefor the words "an improvement".
It will save time if I accept this amendment.
With regard to amendment No. 21, the word "if" in the second line should, of course, be "or".
I move amendment No. 21:—
In page 22, Section 38 (1), line 27, after the word "thereof" to insert the words "or from moneys borrowed by the Minister for Finance on the security of Savings Certificates or from such funds of the Trustee Savings Banks or the Post Office Savings Bank as are under the control or in the charge of the Minister for Finance."
I move this amendment for the purpose of getting some clarity with regard to what moneys have been invested in the whole Shannon works, the Shannon electricity undertaking, and also to find out how far it is proposed to occupy certain funds at the disposal or in the charge of the Minister of Finance. I did intend to refer to the misprint in the amendment—the word "if" instead of "or"—but you, Sir, have drawn attention to it, and also to mention that if there were any possibility of the amendment being accepted, a corresponding amendment would have to be inserted in certain other clauses, such as clause 41. This, however, gives an opportunity to test out the matter.
I ask that in connection with this matter of putting money at the disposal of the Electricity Supply Board, the money, even though it proceeds through the Central Fund, should not be precisely limited to such moneys as the Minister may borrow in particular ways and in respect of which Central Fund arrangements are made. It has been pointed out over and over again that, apart altogether from the vast amount of money on deposit in the banks, which might be used productively, and which apparently is not, and, more particularly, the large amount of farmers' earnings on deposit in the banks, supposed to be at call, but everybody knowing that the farmers do not care very much about call, but care a lot about security and a certain amount about secrecy—two sets of money which might be drained off for a matter like electrification of different types—there are three other amounts of money. One is the very big amount which from time to time in years past, under two issues of Savings Certificates, has been borrowed on the strength of these certificates; the second, the amount of money—it used to be relatively small—in Trustee Savings Banks which recently, according to the report of the Commission on Vocational Organisation, have come under the control of the Minister for Finance; and the third, the very big amount of money, amounting nowadays to something in the neighbourhood of £10,000,000 or £11,000,000, in the Post Office Savings Bank.
Between the three funds I have mentioned, there is a sum in the neighbourhood of £23,000,000 or £24,000,000 according to one of the latest figures I saw. The rate of interest permitted to be paid to depositors under the two types of savings bank is not more than 2½ per cent. and the amount of interest nominally paid on Savings Certificates was 5 per cent. on the first issue and 3 per cent. on the second, but calculations can be made with regard to the actual amount of the savings which had to be repaid, the actual amount of money got on these certificates which had to be repaid. The amount of money that was repaid is the natural figure to put against the amount of money borrowed in this way, because it clearly indicates that the same type of statistical regularity and habit may be counted upon in connection with that money as banks count on in connection with money they have.
We know that banks consider themselves entirely ready to meet any ordinary demand if they carry one-tenth of the moneys which they might, on a complete run on them, have to pay out. If they carry one-tenth in liquid shape, they consider themselves safe. If anything happened to make the run sufficient to dry up that one-tenth, they simply rely on the fact that the Government would step in and declare a moratorium. That, in a simple way, is the system on which the banks operate. I do not say that one-tenth as opposed to nine-tenths is in operation here, but it is the figure generally accepted as that which gives security. If one takes the amount of money got through these Savings Certificates and the amount of money called upon by way of repayment, we get exactly the same type of thing, and it is quite clear that, notwithstanding the theory that these moneys are at call, unless people were suddenly to change their habits, there is no reason whatever why this money should not be used over fairly long terms.
In addition, of course, to the particular amendment which might be required to make this a rounded amendment, there is one which I could not put down, because it would seem to impose a charge on the public purse, that is, what certain countries have adopted in relation to such matters as Savings Bank moneys where they are used for long-term development. In the case of abnormal demands being made, demands out of all proportion to the statistical regularity of the ordinary customer, the Central Bank is authorised to manufacture and pay legal currency, and once you have that background, there is no question. In some countries where this has been used for many years, there has never been anything like a run-less even in this connection than in relation to ordinary banks.
There is then this amount of money. If we take the two funds on the basis of one figure I saw, relating to a period three years ago, there would be about £11,000,000 at the disposal, apparently, of somebody or other in connection with these Savings Bank and Trustee Savings Banks, and something in the nature of £11,000,000 derived from Savings Certificates. I do not know what is the evidence on which the statement is based, but the statement has been made and twice repeated—once by Professor O'Rahilly in his book on money and once in the report of the Commission on Vocational Organisation—that the fruit of the Savings Certificates was, in fact, the money used for the development of the Shannon, in the main.
That statement, which is made as a matter of fact in that particular book, is repeated in the recent report of the Vocational Organisation Commission. They say that whatever may be the theory with regard to money at call, it is notable that this money, allegedly at call, was, to the extent of £11,000,000, used for the building of the Shannon scheme. I do not know where that statement came from and I do not know what evidence was adduced for it, but it was sufficiently strong to satisfy the mind of Professor O'Rahilly when he wrote his book; and, secondly, the minds of those who subscribed to the report of the Vocational Organisation Commission; but if that is the case, one is led immediately to another inquiry: what is the interest being charged to the board and what relationship does it bear to the rate payable on the Savings Certificates Funds if these moneys have been used in regard to the Shannon?
The first Savings Certificates fund was supposed to be a 5 per cent. issue. That 5 per cent., of course, was reached only if people left their money in for the full period. If demand for repayment was made earlier and on whatever amount of repayment was made earlier, the rate was very much lower. The second was a 3 per cent. issue and, of course, the same situation arises there. I have seen a calculation made and worked out with considerable care that the effective rate on repayments made up to date in connection with the first issue was in the neighbourhood of 2 per cent., a fraction over 2 per cent. The calculation—which has to be more of an estimate—in connection with the second issue was that the figure would be about 1¼, or a little less than 1.25 per cent.
If that is the situation with regard to these moneys, one is, I think, entitled to inquire what rate the electricity-consuming public are paying through the interest rates to the Government. In that connection, I would like to get another figure to see what amount of the final charge made to electricity consumers is taken up by interest or sinking fund arrangements. It would appear from a calculation made from the reports issued by the Electricity Supply Board, prior to the war, that in normal times they certainly would not be less than 60 per cent. of the charges to consumers which are entirely dependent on the rate interest, so that a change in the rate interest would change 60 per cent. of the final cost to consumers. If moneys which are theoretically at call can be used in this way, surely there is no reason why Savings Bank moneys could not be so used. A one-line clause Bill, which any Minister could bring forward, would settle the matter to the satisfaction of those who have the moneys. If there was anything in the nature of an abnormal demand, the Central Bank could meet that by the issue of legal currency. A certain amount of flexibility might be allowed in the interest rate, up to a point, so as to be able to stabilise any attempt to draw out anything more than the normal amounts required from any of these funds.
When I questioned the Minister for Finance about these funds I got the tacit admission from him that the State was making a little bit of money from whatever funds it raised to supply money to the Electricity Supply Board. When I tried to find out what the amount was, I was fobbed off with replies referring me to previous answers. The Minister, more than the Minister for Finance, seems to be accepting it that the State makes more than a bit out of these moneys. I do not know how much it is, but in regard to these Savings Certificates, the State seems to be making a big amount of money by a certain moneylending process. The pretence made in this Bill is that electricity is going to be sold at a cost which will be divided into two parts. The rural community will pay one moiety of whatever that cost is, and the State will give the other. The State can be very benevolent and generous when, at the same time, it is finding money at 1½ per cent. and lending it to the board at 3 per cent. There you have the pretence that they are meeting half the cost. In reality, the State, instead of meeting half the cost, is carrying on a sort of moneylending process.
It is time we secured acceptance of the fact that these moneys, although theoretically at call, have been used for development. The at call principle is really at the basis of all this borrowing and lending. We ought to have a definite statement from the Minister that it is recognised that these moneys are there as a fund that can be used for productive purposes, and that they are going to be so used. It might be made clear that if any disquiet were to arise amongst those who put the moneys into these funds it could be allayed by a simple provision whereby the Central Bank would be allowed to meet an abnormal situation by issuing extra legal currency. The Minister may say that would be a very serious situation for us to reach. It might also be a very serious situation if the banks reached it. If they did, the State would meet it either by declaring a moratorium or coming to the banks' assistance by issuing, printing, that is to say, making more money. That is recognised as the background of the ordinary banking situation. I suggest that these funds have been used without any argument based on the theory of money at call, and that we ought to validate that.
I hardly think it is proper for the Deputy, by way of an amendment on the Report Stage of a Bill, to seek to alter the whole basis of the financial procedure which the State here has adopted since it was established. If there is a case to be made for altering either the financial basis of the Exchequer's operations or for criticising the interest rates charged by the Minister for Finance on advances from the Central Fund, it should, I suggest, be made on some finance measure. Such a proposal should be made when the Minister for Finance was present, as he is responsible for the policy and practice of his Department in that matter. I think that, to some extent during the discussions in Committee, I dealt with the point that Deputy McGilligan is now raising. Rightly or wrongly, we have operated the finances of this State upon the principle of a Central Fund. Into that Central Fund all the State revenues go, whether these revenues come from taxation, from non-tax sources or from borrowing. The principle of establishing the State finances on the basis of the Central Funds has been examined by financial experts employed by the present Government and the previous Government, and in neither case was it contended that the principle was unsound or suggested that it should be changed.
I think there is a very serious objection to any proposal for earmarking particular Government revenue for particular purposes. I think that the history of other States, which adopted that device, should intimidate us from following their example. In fact, it is only insolvent States that do it, only States that are required to do it by their creditors. Some State that is bankrupt, or near bankrupt, that borrows money for some national development, is required by those who lend the money to earmark, for the repayment of the amounts and interest due to them, some particular portion of normal State revenues. The fact that we operate on the basis of the Central Fund, and that we do not have to earmark any portion of the Government's income for any specific purpose, is an indication of our financial strength, an indication that we are not bankrupt. I see no reason why we should adopt the practice of bankrupts unless there is some obvious advantage to be derived from doing so. What is the advantage? It is, of course, impossible to say at a given stage what proportion of the balance available in the Central Fund is represented by borrowed moneys, what proportion by the proceeds of taxation, what proportion was borrowed at one rate of interest by the issue of Savings Certificates and what proportion, at another rate of interest, by the sale of National Loan stock. Whatever balance is in the Central Fund at any time is known and is published periodically by the Department of Finance. The idea that, because we have liabilities amounting to £10,000,000 or £20,000,000 in respect of Savings Certificates or deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank, there is that amount of money there now to lend out, is completely erroneous. The balance in the Central Fund at any time is very frequently quite small and there have been occasions when the Government found it necessary to resort to short-term borrowings from the banks to meet current outgoings.
It is also a fundamentally wrong assumption that money borrowed at call can be invested in long-term projects. It is quite true that, if all the farmers in Ireland put their money in the bank, only a small proportion will require their money back at any one time. Deputy McGilligan has that fact so definitely embedded in his mind that he actually contemplated, at one stage, the new transport company, Córas Iompair Eireann, operating a banking system for the purpose of getting money for capital investment purposes; and he is now, I gather, making a somewhat similar suggestion in relation to the Electricity Supply Board. The fact that the lenders of the money as a whole are not likely to require repayment of all their loans at the same time does not affect the individual concerned. The point is that the banks—whether commercial banks or the Post Office Savings Bank—or the Government issuing Savings Certificates guarantee to the individual that he will get his money back when he wants it.
If the Government has taken his money and invested it in a hydro-electric scheme on the Erne, it will not be good enough to tell that man, when he comes for his money: "You cannot get it, but we can give you a few hundred kilowatts if you want it; you cannot get back the actual money, as it is tied up in the Erne". That is what is involved in the suggestion that bank deposits or revenue from the sale of Savings Certificates or deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank, should be appropriated for long-term capital purposes. If it does not mean that, it means nothing. Either we bring all our revenues into one fund and from that fund meet all our financial obligations, or else we earmark particular revenues for particular purposes. We cannot have it both ways. If we are going to earmark the revenue from the Savings Certificates for hydro-electric development, then we cannot meet the obligation which we have entered into with those who have bought the certificates, to repay them, unless the Government puts also behind their certificates something more than the particular asset that was created by them.
In any case, we have entered into certain contracts. There are statutory regulations which govern the investment of money deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank. It would be fundamentally wrong and immoral for the State at this stage to utilise that money in any manner other than was contemplated by the statute and certainly without giving the people concerned an opportunity to get their money out of the bank, if they wanted to do so.
Whether the State makes a profit upon the advances to the Electricity Supply Board is a matter which it is very difficult to determine. If I have taken a somewhat different view from that of the Minister for Finance, it is because the Minister for Finance and myself have argued the point on a number of occasions. It is a matter for argument and not one for mathematical proof. The opinion might be held in one quarter that the rate of interest charged on advances is higher than is justifiable, having regard to the circumstances of the Central Fund; and on the other hand, the argument can be advanced that the rate of interest is fully justifiable. In practice, it is not possible to have the rate of interest on advances to the Electricity Supply Board vary with the variations in the rates at which the Government can borrow. It is desirable that the board should be able to prepare its calculations on the basis of a uniform rate of interest on advances. In future, they have been notified, that the rate of interest will be somewhat lower than it has been in the past, but that lower rate of interest will continue for a time, even though there may be fluctuations in the rate of interest at which Government loans are issued.
There is another amendment by Deputy McGilligan, which, I gather, is out of order, but which contains a suggestion which was discussed here before, namely, that the board itself should be allowed to borrow. I think it is a completely false assumption that the board could borrow for itself at a rate of interest which would prove cheaper to the board. The board has to take into account not merely the rate of interest payable but the total cost of the interest charge, and the total cost of the interest charge is determined not merely by the rate of interest but by the ability of the board to enter into capital liabilities only when it has a use for the capital and avoid those liabilities when it is desirable to do so.
If the board went to the money market in the ordinary way for advances, it would frequently be left with large capital sums unemployed, on which interest would have to be paid, and the taking into that account the interest charge on the board's revenues might easily result in the position that the rate actually paid on the capital employed at any one time would be substantially higher than under the present system, even if the rate of interest under the present system were higher than that at which the board might find it possible to issue bonds. In any event, that is another issue.
I rise here to rectify certain obvious errors in the argument of Deputy McGilligan, but mainly to urge that, if this question of the financial practice of the State is to be discussed, or if there is criticism to be offered of the rate of interest charged by the Minister for Finance on advances from the Central Fund for purposes approved of by legislation, then they should not be raised as a side issue on a Bill of this kind. They should be raised as separate issues upon a finance measure, in circumstances which would enable the Minister for Finance to deal fully with them.
There is one small point where the Minister appears to be contradicting the statement he made on an amendment of mine on the Committee Stage, seeking to fix the rate at 3 per cent. He stated then that you could not fix a level rate for the board's rate of interest and now, if I am right, he has stated that it is better that the board should have a stabilised rate of interest, which may fluctuate.
I said in Committee that the practice has been not to vary the rate of interest charged to the board with each variation in the rate of interest at which the Government has to borrow. The practice has been to maintain unchanged the rate of interest to the board over a comparatively long period and only to adjust that rate when it is obvious that there has been a permanent alteration in the position of the capital market.
I would like a moment or two to reply on this point.
The Deputy knows this is the Report Stage.
But leave has been given to speak a couple of times. I do not intend to be very long and, with your permission, I will speak again. The Minister has spoken about this amendment of mine as an attempt to follow the policy of bankrupt States which earmark their funds for special purposes, whereas that provision is not in my amendment and we do not earmark any fund for any purpose. I propose that the Minister may lend from the Central Fund, or the growing produce thereof, or from the Savings Bank Fund, or from the Savings Certificates Fund. There are three sets of funds. The Minister is trying a good slapdash argument to "down" something by a bit of crossroads propaganda. It is something that is not in the amendment. I do not earmark anything for a special purpose. The Minister then moves on from this fallacy and falsity to say that it is ludicrous for me to speak as if, when we had £11,000,000 already in the Savings Certificates and £11,000,000 in the Savings Banks from depositors, we had, therefore, £22,000,000 in hands.
Because there is none.
Because it has been invested somewhere.
Because it has been utilised for State purposes.
It is money at call. It is invested somewhere. Will the Minister say it is invested in such a way that, if a depositor walks in to-morrow, he can get it?
Certainly.
What about the Banking Commission's Report?
There is the security of the Central Fund.
I am told that the money is invested. The Banking Commission's Report, which it seems is the most modern financial document the Minister has read, although it was issued a good many years ago and was then regarded by some critics as a museum piece, stated that the money was not at call, that it had been used for State purposes. The Minister knows that two authorities stated that it has been used for electricity purposes. I ask the Minister was it so?
It is not so. No one can say that.
The Vocational Commission say that the Shannon scheme was mainly built on the sale of Saving Certificates and Post Office deposits.
They could not possibly say that.
We will find out sometime by questions whether there is any evidence to that effect. They were a fairly responsible authority and they have said it. Professor O'Rahilly is not given to making statements without having evidence to go upon. He says that they tell us with regard to Post Office Savings Bank deposits and Savings Certificates there must be liquidity, but when it comes to building the Shannon scheme with Pat Murphy's Savings Certificates, they do not care about liquidity—they plough these moneys into the Shannon scheme. The Minister said it was ludicrous to tell anyone looking for money: "We will give you so many hundred units of electricity". Again the Minister—I do not know whether it was a mistake or a deliberate misleading of the audience in this manner—says: "You promised each individual you will pay." Therefore it is no good for me to say that statistical regularity has been observed and that about ten out of every 100 customers ask for their money. Supposing the situation is that those persons from A to J in the alphabet come in regularly looking for their certificates, does the Minister say that it would be wrong to give to the persons from A to J the money you have got from X, Y and Z? If it is wrong, the banks are doing it every day. They do not think it is immoral. It is a recognised practice. They gather in money from all and sundry and keep one-tenth of it liquid. They know well that if the persons from A to J call in for their money, the other classes are sleeping and do not care to get the money back. The Minister again contradicts himself. He says that it is wrong to use money invested at call; but he has already told us that this £22,000,000 derived from Savings Banks' depositors and Savings Certificates cannot be used: that it is wrong for me to talk as if the moneys were there, that the moneys have been used. The mere fact that the moneys have been used disproves the Minister's statement that they are at call. I want to return to the amendment.
The Deputy is making a second speech.
I can raise it on the general discussion on the Fifth Stage. The Minister has been allowed to speak on an amendment of mine which was ruled out of order. I want to answer that too. I can postpone it to the Fifth Stage, if necessary. The Minister says that the amendment that I put down to allow the board to issue debentures and to borrow is wrong. Why? He says that the board would have large blocks of capital unemployed. Did he ever look at the issues of the Central Electricity Board in England? They are ordinary stock exchange issues. They have power to borrow. Is it only possible for an English company to borrow without having blocks of capital unemployed?
I said it would be cheaper for the board.
What is the money mainly going to the board borrowed at? We will get the figure some day. Page 21 of the report of the board refers to Denmark and says:—
"The organisation and management of rural supply is generally in the hands of co-operative associations of farmers. Financing has been carried out on short-term loans, generally ten years, borrowed from banks, insurance companies or other finance corporations on the security of individual co-operating farmers."
In Denmark it is not a question of thinking of a mighty Government borrowing, or even of a central electricity board borrowing. Groups of co-operative farmers can borrow effectively and efficiently. What they can do I think we can do. So far as America is concerned, they set up a Rural Electrification Administration and they placed very large sums of money at its disposal. These moneys are advanced by way of loans to co-operative associations of farmers, to local authorities and to private power companies who undertake the organisation and management of rural supply networks in their own areas. The period of the loans is 25 years and the rate of interest is based on the average rate the United States pays on its obligations of over ten years. They are able to find what is the average rate but apparently the Irish Government are not. The Minister says that it is impossible to say for any particular thing financed what the money will cost.
I can tell you the rate of interest charged to the board.
Would the Minister tell me, over a five-years period, how much Savings Certificates money and savings bank money went in?
Nobody can tell.
It is possible to get Savings Certificate money at about 1½ or 2 per cent. and Post Office Savings Bank money at about 2½ per cent. and yet the Minister cannot tell me anything except the final price of money to the State. The final price is made up by the addition of the components. If he knows the final price, he must know the situation as regards the components. I think it can be done. It is no excuse to say that it cannot. It is only for the purpose of keeping up the pretence of money at call and saying: "We can't tell you anything about interest rates." If the board fear, and I am sure they recognise their weakness as much as the Minister, at any time that they cannot borrow in order usefully to employ blocks of capital, they will not borrow. I only asked in the amendment ruled out that they should be allowed to issue debentures to meet an eventuality; that they might be able to make a plaint to the country that they were being fleeced as the State were getting money at 2 or 2½ per cent. and lending it at 5 per cent., and that, in such circumstances, the board might then have an issue of their own as a reserve power.
The Deputy has to convince his own Party of that first.
That may be. If I had people who did not agree with me in my own Party, I think I would have supporters in the Minister's Party.
When will the Fifth Stage be taken?
Now. We would like to get it to facilitate business in the Seanad.
Is there any reason why it should not be left over? If there is not, it could be put down for to-morrow or Friday.
I am only anxious that it will be ordered for to-morrow. I take it that it will not be taken until after the other Bill is completed.
I hope it will be possible for people with other engagements to be here for it.
I am anxious to get the Bill out of the Dáil to facilitate business in the Seanad.
I have questions down to the Minister for Finance about Savings Banks and Savings Certificates and I should like to get the information.
Then we shall put it down for Friday.
If it is put down for Friday, could it be taken late in the evening?
I believe the intention is to sit on Friday morning. The Seanad has six Bills before it at present.
Some of these, at any rate, will be adjourned for a fortnight now.
If it were taken next Wednesday, could it not be given to the Seanad the following day?
Next Wednesday then.
I would be obliged if the Minister would put it down for some time late in the evening so that I may get a chance of speaking.
